Saint explains why she voted 'no' to AFLW CBA proposal

St Kilda’s Cat Phillips has explained why she voted against the AFLW collective bargaining proposal, declaring players in the ‘no’ camp want greater certainty around a vision for the competition and clarity around benefits.

However, having been part of meetings with the AFL Players' Association this week, Phillips is optimistic of a resolution after productive discussions.

Cat Phillips.Credit:Adam Trafford

Phillips confirmed the Saints were one of four clubs - including Greater Western Sydney, Carlton and Geelong - who had a majority of players vote against the joint AFL-AFLPA proposal for a three-year CBA.

While 70 per cent of players voted for the proposal, which included gradually increasing home-and-away season lengths, leading to a 10-round campaign in 2022, it was below the unofficial 75 per cent threshold implemented by the AFLPA.

Advertisement

That sent the union and the players back to the drawing board. Meetings have been held this week in a bid to reach a more palatable deal, with the mooted start to pre-season little over a month away.

Loading

Phillips, a mechanical engineer with Esso, who crossed from Melbourne to the expansion Saints during the off-season, is one of the club’s two player delegates who met with the PA earlier this week.

The union was set to meet more St Kilda players on Thursday night, with similar meetings to be held with the other ‘no’ vote clubs.

Phillips, 27, also a highly accomplished ultimate frisbee player, said the meeting earlier in the week had been positive.

“After the results of the vote came through the other day, the delegates from the clubs where the majority voted ‘no’ met with the PA. That was an extremely positive and collaborative meeting with really good outcomes,” Phillips told The Age.

“I think we’re all really confident that we’re working together well and we’re going to have a resolution to this pretty soon.”

Phillips said she had trust in the AFLPA, but outlined her issues with the deal voted on.

“The main thing really from my point of view is that it’s around clarity of exactly what benefits the players are getting, certainty around the growth of the game and making sure that all of the working conditions, be that pay or hours worked, or other conditions we have, that all of that is leading into a sustainable, long-term competition,” she said.

“There are a few elements of uncertainty in the deal around the growth in the game going forward. So they’re things we felt could be tidied up a little bit.

“For me, the ‘no’ vote was not around the PA at all. It was more around was I or other people comfortable to accept the deal currently?

“I feel like not all the hours that players are working under are being captured. That was an area that could again be improved going forward.”

While season length has been a hot topic, Phillips said it wasn’t her primary driver. She was reluctant to delve into some of the finer details of discussions but stressed the diversity of opinion in women's football would ultimately leave the competition stronger.

“I don’t think it’s really around how many games we play every year, it’s more around a commitment to growth and commitment to the sustainability of the league,” she said.

“We’ve agreed with the AFLPA that [specifics] will be confidential during the negotiations going on.”